The title is the nod to the extremely worldly (but alas extremely popular) movie, “Revenge of the Nerds”, but this may be the year of the nerd, dork, wonk, etc.  A friend advised me that DC is “Hollywood for ugly people” (a nod to yet another movie:  Because Washington is Hollywood for Ugly People) but regardless, The thing that Jindal, Ryan and Daniels bring to the table is an intense intellectual curiosity and a desire to solve problems. 

Cong. Ryan has a plan to get the nation out of debt and protect Medicare and Social Security.  Shawn Tully at Fortune has a useful synopsis of the plan and the man.  It’s not without some loss of benefits but that is part of the necessary sacrifice.  He wants to reform the tax system to have a choice – the regular tax return or a simplified tax return at either 10 or 25% with no deductions.  Even the CBO admits the Ryan plan will work.  But, Speaker Pelosi criticized it (Yes, that’s may be best evidence Ryan’s on the right track) as hurting the elderly:

Obama noted that Ryan had “made a serious proposal” to rein in the deficit and then praised him for at least addressing entitlement spending. Following those apparently peaceful words, Democrats launched a withering assault over the next three days as budget director Peter Orszag, Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all pummeled Ryan for threatening the safety net for the elderly and providing tax breaks for the rich.

Ryan elected to take on the President at the Health Care Summit:

Ryan got his chance to confront the President at the health-care summit Feb. 25. Seated across from Obama, Ryan addressed him directly with a six-minute, numbers-laden, wonkish analysis of the Senate bill that contradicted the administration’s pledge that the plan wouldn’t add to the mountainous deficit.

Ryan correctly stated that the bill projects that Medicare will lower reimbursements to doctors by $371 billion over the next 10 years, yet Congress would cancel those cuts in a separate bill, all part of an attempt to mask the true size of future deficits through “gimmicks and smoke and mirrors.” Obama steered the discussion away from Ryan’s numbers, and the White House hasn’t challenged his analysis.

The nerdy fun seems to be spreading to candidates.  Rick Snyder is a GOP candidate for Governor of Michigan.  His “One Tough Nerd” ad drew chuckles but also increased his polling numbers from less than 1 percent to 12 percent.  RCP explains this in the nerds article:

Snyder has gone from political zero (polling at 3 percent) to a potential-nerd hero. The ad is one big reason. And this story gets nerdier.

The Michigan firm EPIC-MRA recently polled likely primary voters. Only the contenders’ names were first read. Snyder placed third among the GOP candidates, at 12 percent. Then pollsters read candidates brief biography. The Gateway geek rose 10 points and took second place. Among “strong Republicans,” Snyder’s biography moved him from third to first place.

Here’s the ad.  Judge for yourself.  I like Snyder (I also like Michigan, too) and think maybe the issue is we need competence not flashiness.

Of course the origin of the money bomb is from the Ron Paul campaign.  Trevor Lyman, the little-known musician and promoter shocked the political world with the November 5, 2007 money bomb that raised over 4.3 million dollars for Cong. Paul (the date came from a minor holiday in Great Britain used in a political thriller, “V for Vendetta”) and followed up that with a bigger haul of just over 6 million dollars on December 16, 2007.   Here’s another great article about Lyman from the Los Angeles Times.  He had never even voted before!  A common slogan was “Dr. Paul cured my apathy!”  Talk about curing apathy with results!  Trevor Lyman is still involved in politics raising money for liberty-minded candidates.  One of his latest ideas is teabombs.com.  Here’s the site.  Keep in mind that people did not rally for Ron Paul because he’s a great speaker, photogenic, charismatic but the strength of his ideas. 

(I have to tell you, Trevor Lyman is a hero of mine.  he’s that rare thing in national politics:  the ordinary guy or gal who changes the way things are done.  I once corresponded with him and got an email back!  I didn’t wash my laptop for a week!)

Be encouraged, fellow libertarians! (BTW, did you see that Debra Medina is now up to 24%?  If she makes the runoff, she’ll have beaten an incumbent United States Senator!  No mean feat.)

My fellow conservatives and Republicans are obsessing with this issue for political gain.  I will wait for them to repent.  I am afraid it might take the loss of rights for Americans or conservatives or followers of Christ before this will happen.

Well, it may be happening ALREADY.  I refer to the Blackwater trial.  Dan Miller writes at Pajamas Media that “Legal proceedings driven by political motivations do not constitute justice.”  Come again?  The blatantly political attempt to force KSM into a military trial, to the point of cutting off funds for the civilian trial, and the campaign to deny rights to terror suspects accomplanied by bad law and dubious history, is this not politically driven? 

I agree with much of Miller’s critique.  The Vice President ought not even be discussing a pending legal matter publicly.  Another nation ought not be publicly interfering in a pending civilian trial in our nation.  Biden should have whispered to the Iraqi officials in the case, “We’ll handle it without any interference from you.  By the way, where’s the oil money?”  I do not know the facts behind the  Blackwater matter.  Perhaps these men are innocent; I certainly hope so. 

Miller continues:

Moreover, long after September 28, the NSD prosecutors persisted in the improper use of compelled testimony — directly contrary to strongly worded advice from the criminal division’s “taint committee,” which had been established to prevent just that.

Compelled testimony?  Contrast the lament of Senator Collins that they did not interrogate the underwear bomber long enough:

“Less than one hour.  * * *  Then he was given a Miranda warning and a lawyer.  And not surprisingly, he stopped talking.”

No word on what to do.  Perhaps some “compelled testimony” might have resulted. 

Suppose Iraq had “compelled” some statements out of the Blackwater suspects?  What would be our reaction?  These statements were made under threat of loss of their jobs.  No waterboarding or torture was even hinted.  Yet, it is legally compelled testimony in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Conservatives are outraged that the government elected to appeal this case.  Miller: 

Whatever may have been the reasoning behind the decision to appeal the judge’s ruling in the Blackwater case rather than to start over and do it right, it is offensive to see the Blackwater guards, let alone the U.S. judicial system, held hostage to the Obama administration’s political agenda. A war on sanity seems to have trumped the war on terrorism.

So it’s bad for President Obama to conduct a political trial, but its great for conservatives to politicize a national security trial.  Let’s try a modest proposal:  Give appropriate rights to all in American courts and use the courts to find the truth, not use the justice system as a political football.

But the Constitution is clear:  The Federal Government has no role in education other than enforcing civil rights.  No standardized tests, no “No Child Left Behind”, no block grants, no Department of Education.

Here is my suggestion:  Have a appointment with Cong. Paul and take his advice.  These famous debate words cited elsewhere on this blog:

“I’d start with the departments.  Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security…”

Let’s work on both foreign policy and domestic cuts to constitutional levels.  I am sure Cong. Paul would like to help his President…

I also find Scott Brown to be clever, humorous, witty and engaging.  He either has a great speechmaker or has a natural talent.  He talks about his truck and used it as a moving symbol of ordinariness – much like the log cabin in the 1800s.  Try this out:   

“I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, and I drive a truck.”

and this:

“Would you like me to drive the truck down to Washington so you can see it?”

Absolutely brilliant.  Brown was respectful and gracious to his opponents, the Kennedy family and others including President Obama.  Brown’s smart and may not be a classic conservative voice.  But he may be different.  He will be heard from again.  I wish Senator-elect Scott Brown all the best.  BUT…

BUT, there was a report on Morning Joe that by a 3 to 1 margin Americans reject rights for terrorism suspects.  This concerns me greatly.  Brown said in his acceptance speech:

“I believe and I know all of you believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect THIS nation.  *  *  *  They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime.  *  *  *  Our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them.”

Let me make myself clear, will all due respect Senator elect Brown, this is a terrible issue to raise.  He is an attorney, he ought to know better.  Brown continues:

“Giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country.” 

They are not new rights; they are centuries old.  They protect all of us.  This issue will surely be used by other Republicans since it worked in one of the bluest states – Massachusetts – and they will probably do well.  But it’s wrong.  Let’s step back and ask what are we doing.  I am reminded of the quote Robert Bolt attributed to Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons (thanks to that rare conservative who is not involved in this demagogy – Judge Andrew Napolitano):

“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s!  And if you cut them down-and you’re just the man to do it-do you think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?  Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s safe.”

If we can give the Devil due process, we can do it for terror suspects.  I reject the idea of a “war on terror” because there is no end to the conflict.  This then by the reasoning of most of my fellow conservatives means there must always be military tribunals in continuous session.  Suppose the next terrorist attack is accomplished by a conspiracy of both domestic radicals and foreign terrorists?  Or criminal gangs paid by Al-Qaeda?  Do we try both in military tribunals?  Then US citizens would then be deprived of their constitutional rights.  Do we want that?  American jails may one day be filled with conservatives or libertarians or evangelical Christians.  To paraphrase our newest Senator, we can do better!  We libertarians must find opportunities to explain that this rights issue is a necessary one to do.  Liberty and rights for all!

In all due respect for the Presidency, my humble criticism.  Let’s start here:

Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight.

I am not going there on the “Should President Obama have won?” question.  When an American President wins the Peace Prize it is an historic event.  But note some significant omissions among the four laureates cited:   The 1983 winner: Lech Walesa.  The 1989 winner: The 14th Dalai Lama.  The 1975 winner:  Andrei Sakharov.  Even the 1990 winner:  Mikhail Gorbachev.  All of who fought against communism or tried to give it a human face.  I think this was not an omission; I’ll demonstrate below:

Now, check out this passage:

The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. 

So far, so good.  Cong. Ron Paul has said pretty much the same thing on the floor of Congress.  But we then have this defense of unnecessary intervention from the President:

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

There was no business for us to attack Serbia in 1999.  No national interest required it.  I do not condone what either the Serbs did or the Albanians but it was not worth ONE American Soldier’s life.  It was a feel good war.  It was not declared as required by the Constitution.  I want to repeat again what we did in Serbia:  We attacked another sovereign nation that had not nor was about to attack the United States.  This must never happen again.

The President says this about less violent intervention:

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

I contrast this to a former President who might have well won a Nobel Peace Prize if there were one in 1828:  John Quincy Adams:  “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”  I believe as a follower of Christ, we may have a duty to act as private citizens, but our government needs to mind its own business and take care primarily of our own people and institutions.  We have unfed children.  We have bad schools.  We have infrastructure needs.  We have mountains of debt that is no being used by foreign nations to try to influence our domestic policy.  We do not need to seek monsters to destroy abroad. 

 I promised you that the omission of Walesa, et al, was not unintentional.  Here is what he said about another President who desered but did not get the Nobel:  Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.

Mr. President, with all due respect, are you kidding me?  Reagan was clear that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” (This was from the 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL; William Safire in his book “Lend Me Your Ears” cited Henry Steele Commager as saying this was the worst Presidential speech ever.  Reagan should consider that a compliment!) and Reagan was clear from his 1987 Berlin speech what must be done: 

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

It is to General Secretary Gorbachev’s credit that he did tear down this wall.  But Reagan did not help liberate Eastern and Central Europe by embracing arms control and perestroika; he did by arming Europe with missiles, fighting the “nuclear freeze” movement, and embracing SDI.  Gorbachev showed his hand when he proposed in Iceland in 1986 deep cuts in nuclear weapons if SDI stayed in the lab.  Reagan also, with the assistance of US labor leaders, helped Solidarity in Poland when that nation was under martial law.  He worked with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to keep the flame of liberty burning.  Now, prise be to God, Eastern Europe is freer than it ever has been!

I am afraid President Obama does not get it.  Here’s what he said about Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II:

Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.

The Pope engaged with Poland?  He was Polish!  This was poor wording at best.  It demonstrates a weak understanding of the great victory the West won against communism.  it was a miracle of God.  Whitaker Chambers wrote in the great book that is a great read, Witness, that when he defected from the communist underground in 1937 he was leaving the winning world for the losing world.  It may seem that way some times, but Jesus will come again and make all things right! 

Let’s congratulate President Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize.  But let’s realize that this speech, while masterfully written and executed, contains several serious flaws.

 (I thank Reagan 2020 for research help on Reagan.)

Governor Jindal came on after the Great American Panel about 9:45PM EDT.  A few notes:

Bobby Jindal is in NYC after campaigning for Chris Christie in NJ!  (He has already TWICE campaigned for Bob McDonnell!)  Jindal suggests that there is a mirror to 1993 – VA and NJ went for the GOP and this led to taking over the House in ‘94.

“We can’t just print the money” Jindal says.  Cong. Ron Paul could not have said it better!  Jindal says the GOP has great candidates and in 1994 some of those candidates came about after the 1993 elections.  Hannity asked about if the Republicans have repented of their big spending ways.  Jindal suggests they have.  I am not sure I am persuaded.  Jindal asserts that the highest tax rates in some states will be higher than France if Obamacare passes! 

The governor thanked President Obama for keeping his word and coming to New Orleans.  Hannity immediately  asked Governor Jindal about Louisiana.  The governor quickly cited several statistics in a row about the Pelican State that I could not keep up with.  (A recent blog entry spoke to that!)  Ethics reform, best government in the South, etc.  The Wonk is in the house!

This is an excellent presentation!  Much better than a certain speech made earlier this year.  My only criticism is Governor Jindal talks fast and is hard to live blog!  But the meat of his message is clear even if he speaks fast. 

We ‘ll try to get a video of this interview.

Here’s the video: 

I am pleased and surprised about the positive comments.  The mostly partisan crowd applauded at the reference to the Governor but some booed at the President’s first compliment (Jindal’s doing a fine job) but recovered a bit when President Obama said that Jindal has sincere concern and is working hard for the state. 

Wouldn’t it be great to see a debate between President Obama and Governor Jindal?  In 2012 it can happen.  We’ll see…

Now, things are very different.  Several things can happen:  The GOP can get either control of one house of Congress or working control of either the House or the Senate – this might actually improve President Obama’s chances of winning re-election by finding an outlet for most of the voter anger building up.  If the Dems do maintain control of both houses of Congress, 2012 may be a better year for the GOP candidate. 

I would not be discouraged.  Join your local GOP committee and work for great candidates who need you.  We have great candidates in VA and NJ this year.  Get involved in local tea parties and similar mainstream groups (be careful of extreme groups disguised as mainstream groups) and make your voice heard.  If it is the Lord’s will, Governor Jindal will be a candidate for President in 2012!